Village Web Site Forum

paul watson
The Hawthorns Sutton
Saturday, October 4, 2008 19:44
flood risk v housing
after paul posted the housing plans through my door i had a mooch around c.d.c web site and found the 2006 flood risk map for cross hills, sutton etc. it is quite interesting to print off and overlay it on the shelaa map. virtually all shelaa sites are within a flood site. which must be a powerfull argument against this legalised government crime. i will definately be at both meetings to add my support.
Paul Wilkinson
Saturday, October 4, 2008 20:53
Hi Paul, thanks for your message. I did the same thing this afternoon using the flood risk map from the Environment Agency's web site (see topic subject "Growth Point proposal") and printed off a couple of copies, one of which is on its way to the Clerk of our Parish Council.

Just because the Government is hitting CDC with a big stick and dangling a carrot in front of its nose doesn't mean it has to act like a donkey.

I suspect CDC is batting on a very sticky legal wicket - we need a couple of legal fast bowlers - fast!

paul watson
The Hawthorns Sutton
Sunday, October 5, 2008 00:39
ok paul lets try a bit of brainstorming on the forum maybe there are some legal poeple out there in sutton land. For starters sites of special scientific interest. Do we have any rare/protected species in these areas trees plants etc. can we play the human rights card anywhere. who owns these tracts of land, the farmers, the council or the developers, i believe we may be able to pull that info from h.m. land registry. if there are 2000 homes then surely 2 of these land masses are set asside to develop the new infant/junoir and secondary schools to accomodate the 5000 (2.5 per house) new children. Flooding, has there been any (very costly to the council) rainwater runoff studies done on the loss of rainwater absorbing land that will be lost to these developments, as of the first of october it has been a requirement that all households submit a planning application to install a driveway or patio over garden area as the government is concerned about losing this absorbing land mass. i really dont want to be swimming down the hawthorns
as it runs off the field opposite .
Sunday, October 5, 2008 02:35
Hey guys, I learned yesterday that the government have pledged $40 million to this development. 14 million is apparently for local development ( like its some kind of gift) butthey also stipulated compulsary expedniture from these funds on a list of requirements identified by the government. These include, a new railway station for Crosshills, a foot bridge over the level crossing( the level crossing gets closed altogether) and numerous other developments. These compulsary developments cost ...guess how much ......yep, 14 million! So actualy there is no real local icentive here at all. the remaining 26 million is the projected costs for actualy making the identified green areas proposed for building on flood proof. So they covered it. They know these areas flood but it looks like they have had surveyers on the case estimating the up front costs for making this plan workable. It seems to me that the objection that works with this more than any other would be the fact that the local community have not been consulted in regards to these radical plans to convert a very happy English village into an experimental cosmopolitan town. Are the inhabitants of Sutton in Craven ready to take on all the issues that emerge with this type of expansion? The noise, the pollution, the crime, the challenges of mixing cultures? Isuspect not, but then we dont know that do we? because they havnt asked, they have simply imposed the plans instead. I will be at the meeting on Wednesday and will be strongly asking the question ...... " when are you planning to have a local referendum on this local development plan? Why are the people not being consulted?"
Sunday, October 5, 2008 17:59
If people wish to stop this, have a look at the Housing needs assessment 2005 which is on the councils website. It is the document that the decision reguarding the type of housing we need is based on, and it can be challenged. I suspect so can any building done since then and future building based on it. That's because it completely excluded the needs of one important group. THE DISABLED. If it has missed an entire group of people in Craven then it is completely inaccurate, meaning the figures for housing need in Craven are therefore inaccurate. As this is the case how can the Council commit to a figure of 300 houses per year?

Hope this is helpful.

  Posting to the forum is de-activated due to lack of use.

  You are welcome to browse through posts but cannot add comments or start new topics.